Cash for Clunkers Program Screws the Poor
Posted By John Moore on August 2, 2009
The Ogovernment’s cash for clunkers program hurts the poor. How?
The poor often buy clunkers for their transportation. These vehicles are traded in for newer cars by the non-poor.
But the cash for clunkers program requires that the clunkers be destroyed, reducing the supply (and thus increasing the price) of older used cars.
Get it? It’s- a government program to improve our economy by destroying useful things. Brilliant, these guys!
And the poor – you know, those folks the left cares so much about – once again get the short end of the stick!
I have often wondered why black people stay with the democratic party. They live in the worst neighborhoods — in the civilized world, attend the worst schools, have to drive or take public transportation to get to a grocery store etc. Why continue to vote for a political party that does not take your vote seriously. Oh sure, they can talk all they want about how important the black vote is, but when it comes to interest groups, blacks fall way behind the teachers unions, unions in general, the ACLU, and a whole host of other mostly useless organizations.
Very well said.
The harm to the poor extends beyond the lack of availability of inexpensive transportation. Someone’s taxes are going to have to go up to pay for this; while the poor do not pay much (or anything) in income taxes, they have payroll taxes, are employed by people who pay income tax and business tax, buy groceries that are taxed (by the state and the corporate taxes are built into the price), and otherwise end up with some of the burden. This $3 billion has to come from somewhere, and, eventually, everyone will pay it. (For those of us who simply do not believe that “taxing the rich” ends at harming the rich, this should be a fairly obvious point.)
Furthermore, the poor and lower middle class cannot take advantage of this to buy more fuel-efficient cars. Even if they do have qualifying low-mileage cars (the term “clunker” is a misnomer; it is not the age nor the condition of the car, but just its gas mileage, that is at issue), they cannot afford to buy new cars, $4,500 discount or not. Insurance, tax, title, license, and registration add additional costs. If the programme were structured differently, they could trade in their gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient used cars, which would actually have the effects of lessening gas consumption and helping the poor to become less poor (by spending less on gasoline and perhaps maintenance).
But noooo…the Obama administration couldn’t pass up the opportunity to get the American citizen to fork over $4,500 so that his neighbour can have a new $40,000 car that gets 20 mpg.
Good points